M/S. THE DIOCESE OF PALAKKAD vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19060/2023HC KeralaKLHC01041543202313 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court also stipulated that if any conditional order of stay is proposed, the reasons for it must be stated. Furthermore, until orders are passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall stand deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. The Diocese of Palakkad, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to expeditiously consider and dispose of their appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner had filed this appeal and stay petition on October 22, 2022, against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner apprehended that the assessment order might be enforced before their appeal and stay petition were considered. The respondents are the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The case was heard on June 13, 2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of the pending appeal and stay petition expeditiously? (Question of procedure/direction) The petitioner argued that their appeal and stay petition have been pending since October 22, 2022, and the 2nd respondent has not considered them. They are concerned about the enforcement of the assessment order. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 19060 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: M/S. THE DIOCESE OF PALAKKAD 1 BISHOP'S HOUSE, NURANI, PALAKKAD , REPRESENTED BY ITS TREASURER-CUM-SECRETARY, FR. RENNIMON, PIN - 678004 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110001 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19060 OF 2023 2

JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition, expeditiously and until such time to defer further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 assessment order .

2.

The petitioner's case is that aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent on 22.10.2022. Despite the pendency of the appeal and stay petition, the 2nd respondent has not considered the same. The petitioner is apprehensive that Ext.P1 may be enforced in the meantime. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri.Harisankar V Menon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

WP(C) NO. 19060 OF 2023 3

4.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext.P3 stay petition is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent since 22.10.2022, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as follows: (i) The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 stay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention, if the 2nd respondent proposes to pass any conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P3 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant

WP(C) NO. 19060 OF 2023 4 to Exts.P1 assessment order shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS JUDGE rkc/13.06.23

WP(C) NO. 19060 OF 2023 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19060/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 DTD. 23-09-2022 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 22-10-2022 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 21-10-2022 Exhibit P4 COPYOF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 11417/23 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 11-04-2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →